Some church leaders are calling it blasphemy, the Libertarian Party says it’s right on and a religious scholar labels it a misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

Opinions were plentiful yesterday in the aftermath of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Ohio’s 41-year-old state motto -- “With God, all things are possible” -- is unconstitutional.

“I think it’s a blasphemous attack on God and the Bible and Christianity and decency as a whole,” said the Rev. Charles Mainous, pastor of High Street Baptist Church.

“Ridiculous,” said the Rev. Bob Huffaker of Grove City Church of the Nazarene. “This is not what our founding fathers intended when they spoke about separation of church and state. They wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

While the debate rages, Ohio Department of Taxation officials are wondering whether they will need to strip the motto from hundreds of tax forms, which cost $4 million to print.

“It’s on every publication we do,” spokesman Gary Gudmundson said.

Attorney General Betty D. Montgomery has 14 days to seek a ruling by the full 13-member court, or 90 days to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 2-l decision, the federal court in Cincinnati ruled that the motto is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the state. The court ordered the motto’s removal from the Statehouse, publications and all other official uses.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties of Ohio on behalf of the Rev. Matthew Peterson of Fair-mount Presbyterian Church of Cleveland Heights.

The ruling overturned a 1998 decision by U.S. District Judge James L. Graham permitting use of the motto without reference to its biblical context, Matthew 19:26.

Many court critics wonder why “With God, all things are possible” is unconstitutional when “In God we trust” has passed constitutional muster with other federal appeals courts.

The national motto, a quotation from the Old Testament book of Psalms that appears on U.S. currency, was adopted by Congress in 1956.

The appellate court wrestled with the distinction between the two biblical phrases.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge David A. Nelson called them “remarkably similar.”

“I do not believe that a reasonable observer in Ohio would find ‘With God, all things are possible’ significantly more problematic than ‘In God we trust,’ ” he said.

In his majority opinion, Judge Avem Cohn said Congress adopted the motto for its “great spiritual and psychological value.” But he cited a 1970 court ruling declaring the motto constitutional because it “has no theological or ritualistic impact.”

The Ohio motto is different, Cohn said.

 “In the context in which the words of the motto are found -- as the words of Jesus speaking of salvation -- to a reasonable observer, they must be seen as advancing, or at a minimum, showing a ‘particular affinity’ for Christianity,” Cohn wrote.

“Simply put, they are an endorsement of the Christian religion by the state of Ohio. No other interpretation in the context of their presence in the New Testament is possible.”

In his concurring opinion, Judge Gilbert Merritt said the “Gods” referred to in the mottos are different.

Ohio’s motto speaks of  “a personal, all-knowing God (who) intervenes in the daily affairs of individuals and through this miracle of supernatural intervention makes ‘all things possible,’ ” Merritt said.

The national motto, however, “does not specify a personal, all-powerful, all- knowing God... The god in whom we ‘trust’ could be the god of Jefferson’s deism or even perhaps the laws of science or the cosmology of Newton or Einstein. The phrase is sufficiently vague that it does not define the particular god of any religion.”

The controversy is still sinking in with James Mastronardo, who, as a youngster, began a three-year campaign to have the motto adopted.

“I’ve got quite a few reactions, but I think I need to settle down to think about it,” said Mastronardo, who now lives in Florence, Ky.

Ron Carstens, an Ohio Dominican College professor specializing in political philosophy, said the decision misinterprets the First Amendment. ’

The idea of the separation of church and state, Carsten said, was to “maximize religious freedom, not keep religion out of government.

‘What we’ve done in the last 30 years is completely turn that separation doctrine on its head.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State offered a very different view, calling the ruling ‘a no-brainer.” The Washington-based watchdog group has 60,000 members.

“The state of Ohio, which represents a broad and diverse population of many faiths has no business promoting the Christian Bible or giving it official recognition,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director.

The Libertarian Party of Ohio likewise agreed with the court ruling.

“Under no circumstances,” said Dena Bruedigam, state party director, “should government aid or attack religion or belief in a supreme being.

“We aren’t interested in forcing our personal beliefs on another, and we don’t think the state of Ohio should be, either.”

Meanwhile, officials in Franklin County - which also adopted the state motto -- are contemplating what to do.

The motto appears in the county seal and flag, over the S. Front Street entrance of the Franklin County Courthouse and on stationery.

Prosecutor Ron O‘Brien said the county is not legally bound to follow the decision because it is not named as a defendant. He recommended no action be taken until appeals are concluded.

At the Statehouse, Rep. Jamie Callender, R-Willowick, said he plans to introduce a resolution next week supporting Gov. Bob Taft and Montgomery in pursuing an appeal.